Integrated Impact Assessment Mayor's Transport Strategy 3 Transport for London

Post Adoption Statement

# Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Post Adoption Statement

## Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 The Revised Mayor’s Transport Strategy 3 (MTS 3) ........................................................................... 3 1.2 The Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) of the MTS 3 ................................................................. 4 1.3 The Purpose of the Post Adoption Statement (PAS) ....................................................................... 5 1.4 The structure of the Post Adoption Statement .............................................................................. 6
2. How environmental and wider sustainability considerations have been integrated into the MTS 3 & how the IIA Report (incorporating the SEA Environmental Report) has been taken into account ................................................................. 7 2.1 The IIA Process ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 How environmental and wider sustainability considerations have been integrated into MTS 3 ........................................................................................................................................ 8 2.3 How the IIA Report has been taken into account ........................................................................... 11
3. Opinions expressed in response to consultation & how these have been taken into account ........... 15 3.1 Overview of Consultation Responses on the Consultation Draft MTS 3 ........................................ 15 3.2 Overview of Consultation Responses on the IIA Report ................................................................ 16 3.3 Environment Agency ..................................................................................................................... 17 3.4 Natural England ............................................................................................................................. 17 3.5 English Heritage ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.6 Just Space ....................................................................................................................................... 17 3.7 Landscape Institute London ........................................................................................................... 18 3.8 Other specific comments from public ........................................................................................... 18
4. Reasons for choosing the MTS 3 as adopted in the light of other reasonable alternatives dealt with ...... 21 4.1 Development of the MTS 3: Strategic Alternatives (Options) Considered .................................... 21 4.2 Reasons for Adoption of the MTS 3 ............................................................................................... 23
5. Measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental and wider sustainability effects of the implementation of the MTS 3 ........................................................................................................... 24 5.1 Summary of Monitoring Proposals ............................................................................................... 24
6. Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... 26
7. Introduction

1.1 The Revised Mayor’s Transport Strategy 3 (MTS 3)

1.1.1 In accordance with his statutory duty under section 142 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (‘GLA Act’), the Mayor of London has prepared a Revised Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS 3) that sets out his policies and proposals for transport in Greater London in the period to 2041. The MTS 3 sets out the Mayor’s vision for London’s transport. The Mayor delegated the tasks associated with preparing the Draft MTS 3 and undertaking a public consultation to Transport for London (TfL), with the final sign off of both the consultation draft and final version of the MTS 3 reserved to the Mayor.

1.1.2 The MTS 3 is a statutory document which is a key part of the strategic policy framework which supports and shapes London’s social and economic development, and is the principal policy tool through which the Mayor and TfL exercise their responsibilities for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London. Each of the boroughs and the City of London are required to produce a Local Implementation Plan which sets out how the MTS 3 will be given effect locally. The boroughs, City of London and other bodies or persons who have relevant statutory functions in Greater London are also required to have regard to the MTS 3 when carrying out their functions.

1.1.3 The MTS 3 is comprised of six chapters:

- Chapter One of the MTS 3 outlines the challenges that London’s transport system faces, including the unsustainable use of street space and issues relating to the adequacy of public transport both impacting on the quality of life of Londoners, and the accommodation of future growth on the transport network, and proposes a new approach.

- Chapter Two sets out the Mayor’s traffic and transport vision and aims for London, including his central aim for 80 per cent of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041

- Chapters Three to Five set out how the MTS 3 seeks to facilitate sustainable changes in how the city’s traffic and transport system operates through the adoption of three themes.

  a) Healthy Streets and healthy people: providing more space for walking and cycling, adopting a Vision Zero Approach to reducing road danger, reducing levels of vehicular traffic on London roads and ensuring that the transport system contributes to improving the environment by enabling London to become a zero carbon city and to be more resilient to the impacts of climate change

  b) A good public transport experience: Transforming the design and layout around stations to encourage the use of active and sustainable modes for onward journeys, improving customer service and ensuring public transport is safe, affordable and accessible, shaping the bus network to improve reliability and journey times, and improving rail services to tackle crowding

  c) New homes and jobs: Embedding more sustainable travel patterns in development proposals, planning infrastructure and services in an integrated way to unlock housing development and support regeneration in response to forecast population and employment growth.

- Chapter Six outlines how the Mayor’s vision will be delivered through transport planning, changing technology, funding, delivery processes and proposed monitoring and reporting mechanisms. 1.1.4 The MTS 3 is one of a number of statutory strategies that the Mayor is required to produce. These strategies are closely interlinked. For example, the Mayor’s spatial development strategy the ‘London Plan’, sets out an integrated economic, transport and social framework for the development of London over the next 20–25 years, while the London Environment Strategy aims to tackle London’s key environmental issues, many of which are heavily influenced by transport.

1.2 The Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) of the MTS 3

1.2.1 The preparation of the MTS 3 has been subject to procedural and legal requirements necessitating assessment of how the strategy will affect people, places, economic and environmental conditions in Greater London. To fulfil these requirements, the policies and proposals within the MTS 3 were subject to the following assessments and the findings collated into the overall IIA Report:

- Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)(^1);
- Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA)(^2);
- Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA)(^3);
- Health Impact Assessment (HIA)(^4);
- Assessment of Economic Impacts (AEI); and
- Community Safety Impact Assessment (CSIA)(^5).

1.2.2 In accordance with the SEA Regulations, an assessment of the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the revisions to the MTS was undertaken, including impacts on air quality, biodiversity, flora and fauna, climate change, energy use and generation, flood risk, geology and soils, heritage, health, landscape, townscape and public realm, materials and waste, noise and vibration, water resources and water quality. In addition assessments of the likely impacts on protected habitats, health, equality, and community safety were undertaken in accordance with relevant national legislation. The assessment of impacts on London’s economy was also undertaken in accordance with Mayoral practice.

1.2.3 The IIA also sought to contribute to the integration of environmental, social and economic considerations in the preparation and adoption of the MTS 3. It has done this by ensuring that commonalities, trade-offs, inter-related issues and synergies between the above assessments and their outcomes have been identified in a systematic manner, and used to inform the MTS 3 development process.

______________________________________________________________________

(^1) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (‘SEA Directive’) and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004/1633 (‘SEA Regulations’).

(^2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994.

(^3) The Equality Act 2010 (‘Equality Act’) requires public authorities to work to eliminate discrimination and promote equality in all their activities. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act the Mayor of London is subject to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED).

(^4) Section 41(4) of the GLA Act states that in preparing or revising his strategies the Mayor shall have regard to the effect that the proposed strategy or revision would have on the health of persons in Greater London.

(^5) The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Police and Justice Act 2006 make provision for preventing and combating crime and disorder. The GLA and TIL have a statutory duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act including to give consideration to the impacts of proposed revisions to the MTS on crime and disorder. 1.2.4 The process of undertaking the IIA contemporaneously with the development of revisions to the MTS has enabled TfL to fulfil the requirements of the SEA Directive on the assessment of the effects of plans and programmes on the environment. The detailed IIA process and its methodology are described in the IIA Report which accompanied the publication of the Draft MTS 3. The report was made available for public and stakeholder consultation in the period from 21st June 2017 to 2nd October 2017. The IIA Report and the Draft MTS 3 are available from: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/mayors-transport-strategy/#makingithappen.

1.3 The Purpose of the Post Adoption Statement (PAS)

1.3.1 It is a requirement under Regulation 16 of the SEA Regulations that a Post Adoption Statement (‘PAS’) is produced. The purpose of this statement is to demonstrate how the SEA, or in this case the IIA, has served to influence the drafting of the final adopted MTS 3. Regulation 16(1) and (2) require that a statement containing the particulars set out in Regulation 16(4) is prepared and published following the adoption of the MTS 3 and the publication of the IIA Report. The particulars the statement must include are:

- how the environmental considerations have been integrated into the MTS 3;
- how the Environmental Report has been taken into account;
- how opinions expressed by consultees in response of the invitation referred to in Regulation 13 (2)(d); and
- action taken by the responsible authority in accordance with Regulation 13(4), have been taken into account;
- how the results of any consultations entered into under Regulation 14(4) have been taken into account;
- the reasons for choosing the MTS 3 as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with; and
- the measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of the MTS 3.

1.3.2 This PAS has been produced after the findings of the consultation have been taken into account and the final version of the MTS 3 has been drafted. It meets all the requirements of a PAS but also seeks to reflect the wider scope of the assessment in respect of its coverage of sustainability.

1.3.3 Table 1.1 sets out where the requirements of Regulation 16 are addressed in this PAS.

______________________________________________________________________

6 Integrated Impact Assessment of the Consultation Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy 3, 6 June 2017, TfL. Available from https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/19e4ca4f/user_uploads/consultation-draft-mts-iiia-full-report-june-2017--2-.pdf

7 Regulation 13 (2) (d) states ‘invite the consultation bodies and the public consultees to express their opinion on the relevant documents, specifying the address to which, and the period within which, opinions must be sent.

8 Regulation 13(4) states ‘The responsible authority shall keep a copy of the relevant documents available at its principal office for inspection by the public at all reasonable times and free of charge’.

9 Regulation 14 (4) states ‘Where the Secretary of State receives from a Member State an indication that it wishes to enter into consultations before the adoption, or submission to the legislative procedure for adoption, of a plan or programme forwarded to it in accordance with paragraph (3), the Secretary of State shall— (a) agree with the Member State— (i) detailed arrangements to ensure that the Authorities referred to in paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Directive and the public referred to in paragraph 4 of that Article in the Member State likely to be significantly affected are informed and given an opportunity to forward their opinion within a reasonable time; and (ii) a reasonable time for the duration of the consultations; (b) enter into consultations with the Member State concerning— (i) the likely transboundary environmental effects of implementing the plan or programme; and (ii) the measures envisaged to reduce or eliminate such effects; (c) Where he is not the responsible authority, direct that authority that it shall not adopt the plan or programme, or submit it to the legislative procedure for adoption, until the consultations with the Member State have been concluded.' Table 1.1: How compliance with EU SEA Directive regulatory requirements is addressed in this PAS

| SEA Regulations Requirement | Where this is addressed in the PAS | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 16.4(a) How environmental considerations have been integrated into the plan or programme. | Chapter 2: 2.2 How environmental and wider sustainability considerations have been integrated into the MTS 3. | | 16.4(b) How the environmental report has been taken into account. | Chapter 2: 2.3 How the IIA has been taken into account. | | 16.4(c) How opinions expressed in response to: (i) the invitation referred to in Regulation 13(2)(d); (ii) action taken by the responsible authority in accordance with regulation 13(4) have been taken into account. | Chapter 2: 3.1. Overview of consultation responses on the Draft MTS 3. Chapter 3: 3.2 Overview of consultation responses on the IIA report. | | 16.4(d) How the results of any consultation entered under regulation 14 (4) have been taken into account. | This Regulation deals with situations where the plan or programme is likely to give rise to significant transboundary effects between Member States. This is not applicable as no significant trans-boundary effects have been identified as arising from the MTS 3. | | 16.4(e) The reasons for choosing the plan or programme as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with. | Chapter 4: 4.1 Development of the MTS 3: strategy alternatives considered. Chapter 4: 4.2 Reasons for adoption of the MTS 3 | | 16.5(f) The measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of the plan or programme. | Chapter 5: 5.1 Summary of monitoring proposals |

1.4 The structure of the Post Adoption Statement

1.4.1 The PAS is structured in accordance with the requirements of regulation 16 of the SEA Regulations, as set out in Table 1.1 above:

- An introduction to the MTS 3, IIA and the purpose of the PAS (Chapter 1);
- Description of how environmental and wider sustainability considerations have been integrated in the MTS 3 and how the IIA Report environmental report has been taken into account (Chapter 2);
- Description of how opinions expressed in response to consultation on the Draft MTS 3 have been taken into account (Chapter 3);
- An overview of the reasons for choosing the MTS 3 as adopted in the light of other reasonable alternatives dealt with (Chapter 4); and
- An overview of the measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental and wider sustainability effects of the implementation of the MTS 3 (Chapter 5).

2. How environmental and wider sustainability considerations have been integrated into the MTS 3 & how the IIA Report (incorporating the SEA Environmental Report) has been taken into account

2.1 The IIA Process

2.1.1 IIA is an iterative process that identifies and reports on the likely significant effects of a plan or strategy and the extent to which implementation of the plan or strategy will contribute towards sustainable development.

2.1.2 The stages of the IIA process for the Draft MTS 3 were:

- Stage A (Scoping): the context and objectives were set, the baseline established and the scope of the Draft MTS 3 decided upon;
- Stage B (Assessment): alternatives were developed and refined and their impacts assessed.
- Stage C (Reporting): the IIA report was prepared.
- Stage D (Consultation): publication for the purposes of wider public and stakeholder consultation of the Draft MTS 3 and associated IIA report was undertaken. This consultation took place in the summer / autumn 2017.
- Stage E (Monitoring): identification of an appropriate framework for monitoring the effects of the MTS3 following its adoption.

2.1.3 The IIA process began in January 2016 with the development of a Scoping Report which set its scope, nature and role in the development of the revision of the MTS 3. The Scoping Report contained a draft assessment framework including 23 sustainability objectives against which the impacts of the draft revisions would be evaluated (see tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3).

2.1.4 On 14 June 2016, Jacobs, on behalf of TfL and GLA, formed a workshop with key stakeholders to identify key sustainability issues for London and help develop a consistent set of IIA objectives which could apply to all relevant Mayoral strategies. This directly informed the IIA objectives employed in the Draft MTS 3 IIA Report. A full list of workshop participants can be found in Appendix J of the IIA Scoping Report, 2017 available at: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/mayors-transport-strategy/user_uploads/mts-iaa---final-scoping-report.pdf.

2.1.5 The IIA Scoping Report for the MTS 3 was published in October 2016 and disseminated to the three SEA statutory consultees (Historic England, the Environmental Agency and Natural England) as well as other stakeholders for consultation. The consultation ran from 3 October to 7 November 2016.

2.1.6 The detailed responses to the consultation process on the Scoping Report were included in Appendix B of the IIA Appendices Report Part 2. This explains how the responses were addressed in the Draft MTS 3 and the IIA Report. The IIA Appendices Report Part 2 is available from: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/19e4ca4f/user_uploads/mts-iaa-appendices-6-june-2017.pdf.

2.1.7 As a result of the Scoping consultation exercise, a number of actions were taken, including:

- Minor changes were made to the IIA framework. The IIA framework was finalised, as set out in Chapter 5 of the IIA Report, available at: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/19e4ca4f/user_uploads/consultation-draft-mts-iaa-full-report-june-2017--2-.pdf; 2.1.8 The assessment of the possible strategic transport policy options for London to be considered in developing the Draft MTS 3 was an iterative process using the IIA framework that commenced in spring 2016. The strategic policy options assessed are described in Chapter 4 of this PAS.

2.2 How environmental and wider sustainability considerations have been integrated into MTS 3

2.2.1 From the outset, the IIA process sought to actively influence the development of the Draft MTS 3, with the objective of enhancing the sustainability of its policies and proposals. To facilitate this, there was close and ongoing interaction between the TfL strategy team and the Jacobs IIA team, in order to enable frequent review and iterative advice on the sustainability of the Draft MTS 3 policies and proposals.

2.2.2 From the early stages of MTS development, the IIA process was carried out iteratively to ensure it made meaningful contributions to the revision of the MTS, as illustrated in Figure 2.1 below. These contributions included:

- In September 2016, the IIA team provided a number of recommendations with respect to the Draft MTS 3 objectives that were taken into account by TfL in subsequent stages of the development of the Draft MTS 3.

- In November 2016, an assessment was undertaken of the modelling outputs of TfL’s core reference case and six ‘illustrative interventions’ to identify their likely sustainability outcomes. The findings informed the development of the Preferred Option for the strategy. Economic, equality, social, environmental and health effects were individually identified to inform TfL of the likely effects of each specific intervention or revision. TfL took the findings of this assessment into account when formulating the Draft MTS 3, thus ensuring that the development of the revised strategy was carried out in an informed way, and took account of different perspectives and sustainability effects.

- In January 2017, a high level assessment was carried out on the first working draft of the MTS 3 through application of the IIA framework set out in the IIA Scoping Report. The purpose of this assessment was to enable a sustainability appraisal to be undertaken of the proposed priorities, policies and proposals at the earliest appropriate stage to inform the MTS decision-making process. The results of the assessment were presented as key findings and specific recommendations and presented to TfL’s IIA Steering Group on 12 January 2017.

- In March 2017, an IIA assessment of three Strategic Options (as summarised in Table 7.1 of the IIA Report) was undertaken to inform the selection of a Preferred Option as the basis for developing the Draft MTS 3. The results of the assessment indicated that Option 3, in comparison with the other two Options, offered the greater amount of sustainability benefits across the six elements of the IIA assessment (EqIA, AEI, SEA, CSIA, HRA and HIA).

- This IIA assessment of Strategic Options provided a number of recommendations to TfL in terms of how the overall sustainability of Option 3 could be further improved. The final column of Table 8.1 in the IIA Report explains how these were taken into account by TfL in the subsequent formulation of a Preferred Option and its evolution into the Draft MTS 3.

- The IIA Report (Chapter 8) assessed the overall effects of objectives, policies and proposals within the Draft MTS 3 against the full range of sustainability objectives in the IIA framework. For the

______________________________________________________________________

10 ‘Illustrative interventions’ refers to six early packages of indicative transport policy measures that were modelled by TfL to compare likely outcomes of very different strategic approaches. purposes of the assessment of the Draft MTS three main themes (as summarised in para 1.1.3 of this report) were confirmed as the transport strategy objectives.

2.2.3 A detailed description of how TfL has taken the IIA Report recommendations on board throughout the IIA process can be found in Appendix D of the IIA Appendices Report. During the IIA process an MTS Iterations Register provided a detailed record of all interventions of the IIA throughout the development of the Draft MTS 3. This logged all specific IIA recommendations for sustainability enhancements at each stage of the process and how these recommendations were integrated into the draft revised MTS 3 by TfL. A full list of the recommendations made to TfL during the IIA process, and TfL’s response to each, can be found in Appendix D of the IIA Report.

2.2.4 The final column of Table 8.1 in the IIA Report summarises the changes to the assessment as a result of further refinements to the Preferred Option made by TfL in response to IIA recommendations arising from the assessment of Strategic Options. These refinements included revisions to draft policies and the inclusion of new proposals which strengthened the sustainability performance of the strategy and improved the performance of the strategy against IIA objectives in relation to:

- Climate change adaptation;
- Flood risk;
- Historic environment;
- Materials and Waste;
- Natural Capital and Natural Environment;
- Noise and vibration;
- Connectivity;
- Housing Supply, Quality, Choice and Affordability; and
- Accessibility.

2.2.5 In summary, the central components of the interrelationship between the IIA and the preparation of the Draft MTS 3 can be summarised as:

- Early engagement between the IIA and MTS drafting teams to determine the issues and challenges for progressing sustainable transport planning and development in Greater London;
- Workshops undertaken jointly with the MTS strategy drafting team to provide feedback and review on policy direction and the development of proposals;
- Written feedback on iterations of the Draft MTS 3 and a preliminary high level assessment of a Preferred Option for the strategy;
- Ongoing review of iterations of proposed sections of the Draft MTS 3 and meetings between relevant MTS authors and the IIA team; and
- IIA personnel working alongside the MTS team to provide input into the drafting of the strategy through ongoing liaison.

2.2.6 Figure 2.1 below illustrates the interaction and information exchanges between the IIA and MTS teams over the timescale (2016-2017) of the preparation of the MTS 3. MTS and IIA Iterative Process Interactions

**MTS Input**

- **September 2016**

  - MTS Draft structure/skeleton document issued

- **November 2016**

  - MTS Modelling Illustrative Interventions

- **January 2017**

  - MTS 3 Draft 1 issued

- **February 2017**

  - Modelling of packages completed (Table 4.1 of this report)

- **March 2017**

  - Draft MTS 3 issued encompassing three strategic Options (Table 4.2 of this report)

- **April 2017**

  - Fully drafted Draft MTS 3 (Preferred Option)

**IIA Input**

- **September 2016**

  - IIA Review of the MTS Objectives undertaken; Recommendations provided and fed into MTS Draft 1; Changes logged into the IIA Tracker.

- **November 2016**

  - High Level Assessment of the MTS Illustrative Interventions undertaken; Changes logged into the IIA Tracker.

- **January 2017**

  - IIA High Level Assessment undertaken with recommendations provided and logged into the IIA Tracker.

- **February 2017**

  - IIA full assessment undertaken on the MTS three strategic Options including ‘do minimum’ and further recommendations provided; IIA Summary Paper Presented to TfL Board; Changes logged into the IIA Tracker.

- **March 2017**

  - Final Draft IIA Report prepared with recommendations and non-technical summary.

**Finalised Draft MTS 3**

______________________________________________________________________

Figure 2.1: MTS and IIA iterative process interactions 2.3 How the IIA Report has been taken into account

2.3.1 The IIA process described above was the means by which the drafting and content of the MTS 3 was positively influenced and shaped by considerations relating to environmental and wider sustainability issues. Chapter 8 of the IIA Report reports the outcome of this process, setting out for the public, stakeholders and statutory consultee bodies the findings of the assessment of the Draft MTS 3.

2.3.2 The IIA Report (Chapter 8) concluded that the policies and proposals in the Draft MTS 3 would make a positive contribution with regard to the issues and objectives raised in the IIA framework as set out below. No changes were considered necessary to the statement of the overall assessment findings as a result of the changes made to the MTS taking account of opinions expressed during the consultation on the Draft MTS 3.

Table 2.1: Assessment against Environmental Focused Objectives

| IIA Objective | Result | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | **Air Quality** | | | 1. To reduce emissions and concentrations of harmful atmospheric pollutants, particularly in areas of poorest air quality and reduce exposure | ++ Moderate to Major positive effect | | **Climate change adaptation and mitigation** | | | 2. To ensure London adapts and becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events such as flood, drought and heat risks | 0/+ Neutral/ Minor to Moderate positive effect | | 3. To help tackle climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards a zero carbon London by 2050 | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Energy use and supply** | | | 4. To manage and reduce demand for energy, achieve greater energy efficiency, utilise new and existing energy sources effectively, and ensure a resilient smart and affordable energy system. | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Flood risk** | | | 5. To manage the risk of flooding from all sources and improve the resilience of people, property and infrastructure to flooding | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Geology and soils** | | | 6. To conserve London’s geodiversity and protect soils from development and over intensive use | 0 Neutral | | **Historic Environment** | | | 7. To conserve and enhance the existing historic environment, including sites, features, landscapes and areas of historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural value in relation to their significance and their settings. | +/-? Minor to Moderate positive effect / Uncertain | | **Materials and waste** | | | 8. To keep materials at their highest value and use for as long as possible. To significantly reduce waste generated and achieve high reuse and recycling rates | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Natural Capital and Natural Environment** | | | 9. To protect, connect and enhance London’s natural capital (including important habitats, species and landscapes) and the services and benefits it provides, delivering a net positive outcome for biodiversity | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Noise and vibration** | | | 10. To minimise noise and vibration levels and disruption to people and communities across London and reduce inequalities in exposure | +/-? Minor to Moderate positive effect / Uncertain |

### Table 2.2: Assessment against Economic Focused IIA Objectives

| IIA Objective | Result | |------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | **Connectivity** | | | 12. To enhance and improve connectivity for all to and from and within and around London and increase the proportion of journeys made by sustainable and active transport modes | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Infrastructure** | | | 13. To ensure that provision of environmental, social and physical infrastructure is managed and delivered to meet population and demographic change in line with sustainable development and to support economic competitiveness | ++ Moderate to Major positive effect | | **Economic competitiveness and employment** | | | 14. To maintain and strengthen London’s position as a leading, connected, knowledge based global city and to support a strong, diverse and resilient economy providing opportunities for all | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Sustainable Land Use** | | | 15. Make the best and most efficient use of land so as to support sustainable patterns and forms of development? | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Housing Supply, Quality, Choice and Affordability** | | | 16. To provide a quantum, type, quality and tenure of housing (including specialist and affordable provision) to better meet demographic change and household demand | ++ Moderate to Major positive effect | | **Culture** | | | 17. To safeguard and enhance the Capital’s rich cultural offer, infrastructure, heritage, natural environment and talent to benefit all Londoners while delivering new activities that strengthen London’s global position | +/-? Minor to Moderate positive effect / Uncertain |

### Table 2.3: Assessment against Social and Health Focused IIA Objectives

| IIA Objective | Result | |--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | **Accessibility** | | | 18. To maximise accessibility for all in and around London | + Minor to Moderate positive effect | | **Crime, safety and security** | | | 19. To contribute to safety and security and the perceptions of safety | + Minor to Moderate | IIA Objective | Result --- | --- **Health and health Inequalities** 20. To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the City and between communities | + Minor to Moderate positive effect

**Equality and Inclusion** 21. To make London a fair and inclusive city where every person is able to participate, reducing inequality and disadvantage and addressing the diverse needs of the population | + Minor to Moderate positive effect

**Social integration** 22. To ensure London has socially integrated communities which are strong, resilient and free of prejudice | + Minor to Moderate positive effect

**Design** 23. To create attractive, mixed use neighbourhoods, ensuring new buildings and spaces are appropriately designed that promote and enhance existing sense of place and distinctiveness, reducing the need to travel by motorized transport | + Minor to Moderate positive effect

2.3.3 The IIA assessment of the three main MTS themes – Healthy streets and healthy people; A good public transport experience; New homes and jobs - identified potential tensions between the objectives pursued in Chapter 3 and those in Chapter 5 of the Draft MTS 3. An element of incompatibility is inevitable between the policies set out in Chapter 5 that require physical development (such as improving transport infrastructure and the provision of housing) and those in Chapter 3 that seek to enhance the transport system’s contribution to improving London’s environment. Therefore, finding the right balance between the objectives of the policies and proposals set out in these two chapters was important for achieving sustainable development. For example, the protection of heritage assets could constrain opportunities for new sustainable development; but on the other hand, an attractive environment including maintained heritage assets could be a factor that would help to attract and retain businesses. These tensions were addressed through the IIA process by the identification of a number of recommendations designed to improve the sustainability of the draft transport strategy policies addressing historic assets and the natural environment.

2.3.4 To ensure that the themes of the Draft MTS 3 were appropriately integrated, the findings of the IIA informed the drafting of the MTS policies and proposals. Throughout the MTS 3 drafting process, opportunities to explicitly address the interrelated nature of the three themes and the greater cumulative benefit which could be gained through the integrated delivery of MTS policies and proposals, were identified. Measures to further facilitate this are identified under the Recommendations section in Chapter 10 of the IIA Report.

2.3.5 A number of enhancement measures and recommendations in respect of the Draft MTS 3 were made by the IIA team following the assessment of the Preferred Option. These were addressed by TfL following the public consultation on the Draft MTS 3. TfL’s responses to these recommendations are set out below.

**IIA recommendation 1:** The Draft MTS 3 set out a transport strategy delivery process to ensure a joined-up approach across Mayoral strategies. The combined role of the forthcoming Mayoral strategies, and in particular the Draft LES, will provide a strong overarching strategic approach, where appropriate mitigation and adaption is provided for. The Mayor should continue using all opportunities for integrated delivery including ongoing review of where synergies between strategies and their policies can be exploited.

**TfL response:** All opportunities are being, and will continue to be, taken by the Mayor to ensure integrated development and delivery of the Mayoral strategies. These include regular meetings of TfL and GLA officers to review the development of strategies and to ensure that their policies and proposals are consistent and complement each other wherever relevant and possible.

**IIA recommendation 2:** Hydrogen fuelled transport technologies attract significant research and development funds but they are not a CO2 abatement policy option for the short or medium term. Hydrogen has to be produced using non-fossil fuels (nuclear electricity, biomass or other renewable power) if it is to achieve CO2 abatement. As with biofuels, abatement is maximised when these energy sources are employed directly and displace fossil fuelled electricity generation. Availability of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure can be a potential obstacle to the take-up of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.

The Mayor of London should continue providing support to give interested parties the confidence to continue to invest in this new emerging technology, to help to achieve the ambition for almost all new cars and vans to be zero emission by 2050.

**TfL response:** The Mayor of London continues to support the development of hydrogen fuel cell technologies through the Hydrogen London Partnership. Initiatives include the delivery of 15 hydrogen refuelling stations by 2020, and the expansion of the hydrogen bus fleet and refuelling infrastructure to support the delivery of a zero emission bus fleet by 2037.

**IIA recommendation 3:** The Draft MTS 3 includes a package of measures that are likely to improve accessibility for all historic and cultural environments including embedding accessibility and inclusivity in planning and design, as well as trialling innovation methods to improve wayfinding, such as ‘Wayfinder’ systems for people with sensory disabilities. However, it does not explicitly address non-physical barriers for people with sensory or cognitive impairments in its proposals.

The Draft MTS 3 should include proposals to address non-physical barriers for people with sensory or cognitive impairments.

**TfL response:** A number of updates have been made throughout the strategy to address non-physical barriers for people with sensory and cognitive impairments; including amendments to Proposal 52. The strategy sets out to improve travel in London for all users by making it easier, safer and more convenient to use. This includes: improving the planning of journeys and navigation of the network; ensuring stations, stops and public spaces are designed to be inclusive; reviewing the design of buses; and ensuring that staff are available, knowledgeable and empowered to assist. These measures will be supported through wider improvements to public transport services that will see a reduction in the difference in travel times between those who rely on the step-free and accessible network in comparison to the full network, making journeys by public transport more reliable.

**IIA recommendation 4:** To deliver Policy 7, the Mayor will work with stakeholders to establish and regularly monitor a baseline of ecological data in order to demonstrate changes in biodiversity.

Appropriate indicators for ecological data monitoring would need to be included in the TfL monitoring framework to monitor / report regularly to demonstrate positive changes in biodiversity.

**TfL response:** Policy 7 has been amended to include an explicit commitment to monitor green spaces on transport land. TfL are also developing a baseline of biodiversity for the whole of the TfL estate (using an adapted version of the Defra biodiversity tool). This will allow TfL to report in future on changes in biodiversity.

The IIA Report also took into account the findings of the HRA Screening. No direct adverse impacts were expected from the Draft MTS 3. However, adopting a precautionary approach where development detail is not yet available, the assessment identified 17 policies or proposals which cannot be concluded, at this stage, to not have a potentially significant effect on a European site. It is these policies or proposals that the screening assessment has identified as potentially requiring further consideration of the potential effects, once more detail on the specific development implications of the proposals become available. 3. Opinions expressed in response to consultation & how these have been taken into account

3.1 Overview of Consultation Responses on the Consultation Draft MTS 3

3.1.1 TfL has prepared a Report to the Mayor (RTM) on the public and stakeholder consultation on the Draft MTS 3, which will be published alongside the MTS.

3.1.2 Chapter 6 of the RTM summarises the opinions expressed in responses to consultation on the Draft MTS 3, with TfL’s recommendations for changes to the MTS 3 considered appropriate having regard to matters raised in the responses received. The RTM also describes wider changes to the Draft MTS 3, including updates to reflect other Mayoral strategies and policy developments.

3.1.3 There was broad support for the Vision, the Healthy Streets Approach and the 80 per cent mode share target, although there were concerns about whether the level of behaviour change required would be achieved, especially in outer London. The strategy was welcomed by the majority of stakeholders, including boroughs, the transport industry, and notably the health sector.

3.1.4 There was support for the strategic policy direction established in the document and a desire to see it delivered. There were concerns the strategy lacked sufficient detail in a number of areas. There were also calls from both the public and stakeholders for more ambitious timescales (and for the inclusion of interim milestones) especially for the proposals concerning the environment, safety and accessibility.

3.1.5 Regarding the ‘Healthy Streets and healthy people’ chapter, there was support for improving air quality; walking and cycling proposals; and Vision Zero to tackle road danger (although there were calls for this to be extended to all modes). There was a mixed response to road user changing with some seeing this as key to being able to deliver the strategy, while others expressed concerns about a revision of current, or development of any future, charging schemes. Regarding the ‘A good public transport experience’ chapter, there was support for delivering Crossrail 2; rail devolution and metroisation; and improvements to station capacity. In response to the ‘New homes and jobs’ chapter, there was support for the adoption of the transport principles of ‘good growth’.

3.1.6 A number of areas of concern and suggestions for improvement were made across the strategy. Notable issues included:

- Regarding the ‘Healthy Streets and healthy people’ chapter, a request for the strategy to better address the challenges of mode shift in outer London. There were also concerns about the strategy being unclear about how we manage conflict between different road users, and how we allocate road space. There were calls for a clearer freight strategy (including river and rail) and concerns raised about the impact of multiple schemes on the industry and on small and medium sized businesses (SMEs). The requirement to co-ordinate borough traffic reduction strategies was also noted, as were concerns about how we ensure infrastructure is in place to allow growth in low emission vehicles.

- Regarding the ‘A good public transport experience’ chapter, there were concerns as to whether the affordability of transport was fully addressed. There were also calls for the strategy to better address public transport accessibility and apply a broader definition of accessibility, to more explicitly include sensory and cognitive disabilities. There were also requests for a broader range of rail capacity improvements, more ambition on tram extensions and clearer proposals on buses, orbital public transport and better utilisation of the river.

- Regarding the New homes and jobs chapter, there were mixed views on the future of river crossings, along with calls for a range of options to be assessed for southern access to Heathrow.

- Regarding the ‘New homes and jobs’ chapter, there were mixed views on the future of river crossings, along with calls for a range of options to be assessed for southern access to Heathrow. 3.1.7 There were also concerns about deliverability and consistency in provision across multiple partner agencies. As well as concerns about how the strategy is funded and mixed views on future funding opportunities.

3.1.8 A number of changes to the strategy have been made in response to issues raised during the consultation. Below is a summary of the changes – this is not an exhaustive list.

- In the ‘Vision’ and relevant chapters: strengthened narrative on the opportunities from new technology to ensure that innovations contribute to Mayor’s Transport Strategy outcomes and the public good. Clarification that Vision Zero applies to the whole transport system.
- In the ‘Healthy Streets and healthy people’ chapter: strengthened narrative and proposals regarding freight and also strengthened proposals to clarify that improvements to air quality and mitigation against climate change will be taken forward as soon as practicable.
- In the ‘Good public transport experience’ chapter: strengthened narrative on accessibility and inclusion (this also applies across the strategy). Also strengthened narrative on bus services and bus priority (including a revised map showing the plans for buses in outer London), and on national rail in London, including station capacity, interchanges, train service capacity, and rail freight.
- In the ‘New homes and jobs chapter’: included a new section on setting out the potential route and benefits of a west London orbital rail line and added narrative and a proposal to extend the tram network to Sutton, funded primarily from locally derived sources. Also refreshed narrative around southern rail access to Heathrow, including a basis to consider more options with Network Rail.
- In the ‘Delivering the vision chapter’: included a new section on mode shift in outer London, referring to proposals from across the strategy which will contribute.

3.2 Overview of Consultation Responses on the IIA Report

3.2.1 The SEA Regulations require that the ‘consultation bodies’ for SEA (the Environment Agency, Natural England and Historic England) are consulted along with public consultees on the Draft MTS 3 and the IIA Report incorporating the Environmental Report.

3.2.2 The rest of this chapter summarises the consultation responses provided by the three statutory consultee bodies on the IIA Report, and those of other respondents that made comments on the report, as well as TfL’s response and the consequent actions taken in finalising the MTS. Relevant responses were received from:

- Environment Agency
- Natural England
- Historic England
- Just Space
- Landscape Institute London 3.3 Environment Agency

3.3.1 Issue: Transboundary impacts. Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) Report for the draft Mayoral Transport Strategy (MTS). Overall, we support the approach taken in this report, but would like to offer further comment. We believe that the SEA Directive requirement to assess temporal impacts is dealt with satisfactorily (Section 3.11 and Chapters 6, 7 and 8). However, we feel that trans-boundary impacts could be better addressed. The focus of the IIA's spatial scope is, understandably, centred on the GLA area. However, given the potential impacts of proposals in the MTS and the impact of new and future transport infrastructure between London and surrounding counties, we believe there should be more evidence provided on the assessment of the significance of secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects of the preferred option MTS 3, outside of London.

3.3.2 TfL response: The SEA Regulations require that the assessment of effects on sustainability include secondary and cumulative effects where practicable. Cumulative effects have been considered throughout the entire IIA process. The assessment has identified cumulative and secondary effects of the strategy where possible. Where relevant these were identified in the assessment matrices. The assessment has considered inter-strategy cumulative effects, whereby significant effects of the MTS act in combination with the effects of other Mayoral strategies, including the London Plan (2016) and the Draft Revised London Environment Strategy (LES), and can be found in Table 8.2 of the IIA Report. The SEA Regulations address situations where the plan or programme is likely to give rise to significant transboundary effects between Member States. This is not applicable as no significant trans-boundary effects arose affecting the preparation of the MTS.

3.3.3 Action: No changes required.

3.4 Natural England

3.4.1 Issue: IIA Report. Comment: Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Our remit includes protected sites and landscapes, biodiversity, geo-diversity, soils, protected species, landscape character, green infrastructure and access to and enjoyment of nature. Whilst we welcome this opportunity to give our views the London Transport Strategy does not appear to relate to our interests to any significant extent. We therefore do not wish to comment.

3.4.2 Action: No changes required.

3.5 English Heritage

3.5.1 Issue: IIA Report. Comment: No comments received.

3.5.2 Action: No changes required.

3.6 Just Space

3.6.1 Issue: IIA Process. Comment: Section 3.9 IIA Process: para 3.9.4 “Stages B and C in Figure 3.2 (presented in this IIA report) of developing and refining alternatives and assessing impacts will be subject to public consultation and will take into account the responses of those consulted”. The IIA is now at Stage D and no known public consultation has happened at Stages B and C. Close reading of still relevant ODPM Guidance and the EU Directive has generated the Just Space analysis that sets out the required and recommended involvement of the public at the early formative stages. This is below. The ODPM guidance on p10 applying Article 6.1 & 6.2 explains that the public shall be given an early and effective opportunity … to express their opinion on the drafts… at both Stages B and D. The public were not given this opportunity. 3.6.2 **TfL response:** The MTS and the IIA are subject to statutory consultation processes. When the GLA or TfL consider that it is appropriate to consult more widely than is prescribed by statute, it does so. Further to ongoing engagement with community groups, an extensive programme of pre-consultation engagement was undertaken by TfL with over 250 stakeholders, to develop and refine the MTS policies and proposals. This engagement included one to one meetings, briefings, workshops and panel discussions and included:

- Using established engagement events to discuss the emerging MTS including London Councils Transport & Environment Committee meetings, TfL’s Freight Forum, the Bus Forum, the Business Improvement District Roundtable, the Pan-London Mobility Forum and the TfL Youth Panel;
- Specific MTS meetings with stakeholders including London TravelWatch, Borough Councils, transport and environment campaign groups, business organisations and groups representing specific communities including disabled and older people;
- Presenting to and leading discussions at third party arranged events including those organised by London First, Institution of Civil Engineers, Urban Design London and Future of London; and
- Developing a ‘London 2040’ tent at the Transported by Design festival, where artists captured the ideas for transport in the future to inspire the public to consider the challenges for London’s transport over the next 25 years.

3.6.3 The public and the statutory consultees have had an opportunity to comment on the MTS strategic options and their assessment presented in the Draft MTS 3 and accompanying IIA report when the MTS 3 was still at its formative stage. The final MTS 3 has been subject to consultation and influenced by consultation responses. Parliament saw fit to design a consultation process for the MTS and the IIA and the GLA and TfL have fully complied with the regulatory requirements imposed.

3.6.4 **Action:** No changes required.

3.7 **Landscape Institute London**

3.7.1 **Issue:** Green infrastructure reference. **Comment:** The IIA for the Transport Strategy should include reference to the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) ‘Green Infrastructure and Open Environments: the All London Green Grid (March 2012) and should be included within the scoping report in the IIA. Thus potential impacts should be scoped and full assessment undertaken, in preparation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.

3.7.2 **TfL response:** Consideration of the importance of green infrastructure issues has been fully integrated into the IIA assessment framework and is reflected in the assessment outcomes. No changes required.

3.7.3 **Action:** No changes required.

3.8 **Other specific comments from public**

3.8.1 **Issue:** Some general concerns have been received about the IIA methodology, in particular, the approach taken for assessing the impact on people with disabilities.

3.8.2 **TfL response:** It is a statutory requirement that the MTS includes proposals for providing transport that is accessible to mobility impaired people. The IIA report has recognised that many people with sensory or cognitive impairments experience non-physical barriers to use of the transport network. In order to assess how the MTS addresses these issues the IIA assessment framework included a number of guide questions against which the strategy was assessed:

- Reduce travel times for mobility impaired people?
- Improve legibility and ease of use of the transport network for people with sensory or cognitive impairments? • Help enable mobility impaired people to access the services they require?

• Increase the accessibility of key services and facilities for all?

The IIA assessment framework containing IIA objectives and guide questions can be found in the IIA Report, Table 5.2.

3.8.3 The IIA Report identified that the Draft MTS 3 did not contain proposals to address non-physical barriers to transport services for people with sensory or cognitive impairments. The IIA Report also stressed that the introduction of traffic reduction measures could have disproportionate impacts on disabled people who are reliant on private vehicles to access employment and leisure opportunities, particularly those who live in areas of Outer London with low levels of accessible public transport, unless suitable mitigation measures are put in place. It also stated that traffic reduction measures may have a slight negative impact on accessibility to jobs that are only accessible by car. However this could be mitigated by plans to ensure greater connectivity across London with more bus routes and alternative modes of public transport to serve those areas which are less accessible.

**Action:** A number of updates have been made throughout the strategy to address non-physical barriers for people with sensory and cognitive impairments; including amendments to Proposal 52. The strategy sets out to improve travel in London for all users by making it easier, safer and more convenient to use. This includes: improving the planning of journeys and navigation of the network; ensuring stations, stops and public spaces are designed to be inclusive; reviewing the design of buses; and ensuring that staff are available, knowledgeable and empowered to assist. These measures will be supported through improvements to public transport, with enhancements to bus services, extended rail and underground provision and improved interchange between modes to increase the extent, connectivity and reliability of the accessible network. These improvements will reduce the difference in journey times that are seen between the step-free and accessible network in comparison to the full network. It is acknowledged that reducing car use will be more challenging in some parts of the city than in others and in some cases the car will remain the most efficient way of making certain trips, particularly in areas that are currently poorly served by public transport. The strategy (Chapter 6) contains details on how it will be delivered in different parts of London. This highlights how plans such as the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme, the London-wide strategic cycle network, and improved suburban rail and bus services, will provide alternatives to the car in many areas of outer London.

3.8.4 **Issue:** Need for reassurances that IIAs will also take place for individual proposals/measures before they are put into action.

3.8.5 **TfL response:** The planned inclusion of more transport infrastructure schemes which will potentially require land take and may have the potential to affect the natural environment are likely to be subject to environmental appraisal and Environmental Impact Assessment, as appropriate, to ensure protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

**Action:** No changes required.

3.8.6 **Issue:** Concern about the assessment methods not being sufficiently independent.

3.8.7 **TfL response:** The assessment has been undertaken by independent consultants with specialist knowledge across a range of sustainability topics.

**Action:** No change required. 3.8.8 **Issue:** The impact on businesses – especially SMEs and commercial drivers; the impact of Brexit (especially on immigration); and calls for the inclusion of financial and economic impacts.

3.8.9 **TfL response:** The IIA recognised the issues of impacts on SMEs and other economic impacts through Economic Impacts (AEI) forming the part of the IIA process. The IIA assessment presented in Table 8.1 in the IIA Report has identified that while there are clear economic benefits from improving air quality and safety in the city, there are also costs to businesses and consumers. It further stated that the implementation of low emission zones, more control over timing of deliveries and servicing activities and the planned new Direct Vision Standard will have a significant cost to some business sectors (and particularly SMEs in those sectors) due to the need to replace or retrofit vehicles. However, radically reducing congestion on the road network has the potential to provide significant economic gains. The costs incurred by business in paying for demand management and road pricing measures or re-timing deliveries to avoid peak times, will be outweighed by faster and more reliable journey times.

**Action:** No change required. 4. Reasons for choosing the MTS 3 as adopted in the light of other reasonable alternatives dealt with

4.1 Development of the MTS 3: Strategic Alternatives (Options) Considered

4.1.1 Three strategic Draft MTS 3 Options or alternatives (hereafter referred to as “Options”) were put forward for IIA assessment. The development of strategic Options was informed by the strategic transport modelling of different packages of interventions, as set out in Table 4.1. These packages together with the Draft MTS 3 policies provided the basis for the development of the Options. A more detailed description of modelling and strategic Options assessed can be found in Chapter 7 of the IIA Report, available at: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/19e4ca4f/user_uploads/consultation-draft-mts-iiia-full-report-june-2017--2-.pdf.

Table 4.1: TfL’s modelling packages

| Packages | Title | Description | |----------|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | A | Core reference case | Package A contains all those schemes outlined and funded within the TfL Business Plan 2016 | | B | Optimising the Network | Package B contains schemes that aim to optimise the network through lower cost investment across public transport networks and further road space reallocation, and includes DLR/Overground/Elizabeth line frequency uplifts and a bus priority network plan | | C | Incremental Expansion | Package C includes slightly higher investment schemes, including improving rail capacity on the existing network, deep Tube upgrades, full suburban rail metroisation and the Silvertown Tunnel | | D | New Connections | Package D includes the construction of large scale investment projects including Crossrail 2 and the Bakerloo Line Extension and a population growth linked bus frequency uplift | | E | Traffic reduction | Package E aims to use Demand Management measures to reduce car mode share, including increased parking charges and much more intense road space reallocation schemes | | F | Longer term changes to the way road use is paid for | In addition to the public transport, highway and demand management schemes included in Packages A to E, Package F includes road pricing measures in order to reach the 80% sustainable mode share target |

4.1.2 As stipulated by the SEA Directive and UK Government guidance, the sustainability performance of these Options was reported in Section 7.5 of the IIA Report. Consideration of their respective merits during the preparation of the Draft MTS 3 and in the course of the IIA has informed the identification of the Preferred Option and the Draft MTS 3 to be issued for public consultation. The assessment of Options was principally based on an analysis of which Option provided the best basis for progressing sustainable transport provision in London. The three Options assessed are summarised in Table 4.2 below:

Table 4.2: The composition of the three strategic Options assessed

| Option 1 Do Minimum | Option 2 | Option 3 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------| | A continuation of the existing transport strategy updated to include funded commitments as set out in the 5 year TfL Business Plan (2016) | Option 1 with additional package of enhanced public transport investment to accommodate forecast population and employment growth | Option 2 with additional demand management and road pricing levers to maximise mode shift to sustainable modes |

1. **Option 1: ‘Do Minimum’**

Option 1 was based on the London Plan (March 2016) land use/development policies and employment growth, current MTS (2010) policies and proposals, and TfL investment plan as set out in the current business plan to 2021/22. It includes package A – the core reference case, representing 2041 funded commitments including HS2 and forecast changes in London’s land use and economy.

2. **Option 2: Option 1 with additional package of enhanced public transport investment**

Option 2 was based on land use / development policies and employment growth as set out in the GLA projections in the London Plan (March 2016), Draft MTS 3 (2017) policies and proposals, and the TfL investment plan as set out in the Business Plan to 2021/22. This package included proposals set out in the Business Plan which are assigned to category A and A/B plus B, C and D. Option 2 included Draft MTS 3 (2017) policies, excluding demand side and road pricing policies.

3. **Option 3: Option 2 with additional levers to maximise mode shift to sustainable modes**

Option 3 included the aggregate total of all proposals in Packages A-F. Option 3 included all proposals included in Option 2 plus policies relevant to demand management and pricing as well as additional proposals assigned to categories E and F. TfL undertook transport analysis and reviewed other available evidence to measure and compare the relative performance of Options 2 and 3. This exercise enabled a broad understanding of the potential outcomes of pursuing the Options and how these would address identified transport needs in London.

4.1.3 As part of the IIA, an assessment was undertaken of Options 1, 2 and 3 and the outputs of this assessment were used to influence the ongoing development of the **Preferred Option – Draft MTS 3**.

4.1.4 The Preferred Option comprised in the Draft MTS 3, was developed taking into account the IIA assessment of Options and underwent a process of ongoing evaluation and refinement of policies and proposals during their preparation. The process of drafting and refining the Preferred Option was influenced by the IIA, through a systematic process of ongoing engagement between the IIA team and MTS drafting team.

______________________________________________________________________

11 A full assessment of the strategic Options 1, 2 and 3 can be found in Appendix E of the IIA Appendices Report Part 2 is available from: https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/policy/19e4ca4f/user_uploads/mts-iiia-appendices-6-june-2017.pdf. 4.2 Reasons for Adoption of the MTS 3

4.2.1 The results of TfL’s transport modelling of the three Options demonstrated significant differences in the outcomes of the Options at a strategic or London-wide level. Option 1, the ‘Do-minimum option’, was rejected by the Mayor as it would not address the transport needs of forecast population and employment growth within and across London and would not enable the realisation of the vision which the Mayor has for the future of transport in London in the period to 2041.

4.2.2 It was recognised that the policies and proposals contained within Option 2 would not be sufficient to achieve the Mayor’s sustainable mode share target of 80% by 2041 and that additional demand management was needed to encourage mode shift to more sustainable travel options.

4.2.3 The formulation of the Draft MTS 3 was also informed by the results of the initial IIA assessment of three Strategic Options considered by TfL. The results of the assessment of these options indicated that Option 3 offered the most sustainability benefits across the six elements of the IIA assessment (EqIA, AEI, SEA, CSIA, HRA and HIA). Option 3, therefore, became the Preferred Option which was subsequently developed into the Draft MTS 3, which incorporated appropriate mitigation measures to address potential impacts on the natural environment and the community, in particular noise, air quality, climate resilience and accessibility.

4.2.4 Following the consultation on the Draft MTS 3, the MTS 3 has been refined to take into account the findings of the consultation exercise. The full detail of changes made to the MTS are set out in the RTM, as discussed in Chapter 3. 5. Measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental and wider sustainability effects of the implementation of the MTS 3

5.1 Summary of Monitoring Proposals

5.1.1 The SEA Regulations state that monitoring must be undertaken of the likely significant environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes in order to identify at an early stage unforeseen effects and be able to undertake appropriate remedial measures.

5.1.2 Monitoring measures in the form of a strategic outcome framework to enable the monitoring of the implementation of the transport strategy has been developed by TfL and is presented in the current Travel in London Report (TIL) 10 (2017).

5.1.3 The TIL report, produced annually by TfL, will be the principal means of monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the MTS 3. TIL reports are intended to serve a range of purposes, offering an authoritative repository of contemporary statistics and trends relating to transport and travel in London, as well as an interpretative commentary designed to assist policy development. The content of these reports will cover a range of ‘core’ topics and indicators that relate directly to the strategy outcomes, as well as a variable content that focuses on specific contemporary concerns from year to year.

5.1.4 A formal set of quantitative outcome indicators for the Draft MTS 3 was developed and the 2017 TIL included a draft MTS monitoring framework (see Figure 11.4 of TIL 2010). It is acknowledged that this framework may need to be adjusted to reflect the content of the final MTS 3. TfL is also developing a baseline of biodiversity for the whole of the TfL estate (using an adapted version of the Defra biodiversity tool). This will allow TfL to report in future on changes in biodiversity, including if any are brought about by the implementation of the MTS 3. Accordingly, TfL considers that it has the appropriate means by which to monitor significant environment effects which may arise as a consequence of the implementation of the MTS 3. If unforeseen adverse effects are identified, TfL will take appropriate remedial action.

5.1.5 A new structure is proposed for the content of the TIL to ensure that it is aligned with the MTS 3 whilst ensuring it remains a consistent publication of core transport statistics. The proposed sections are set out below:

- Section 1: Travel demand, mode shares and the factors affecting it. Similar to existing ‘front end’ of previous TIL reports, but remodelled to focus more on mode share. In-depth consideration of aspects of travel behaviour (LTDS) and outputs from the Drivers of Demand work programme.

- Section 2: Healthy Streets and healthy people. Topics will range across: walking, cycling, physical activity, the role of the transport system in activity, the street environment (measured and attitudinal, including aspects such as personal safety, noise and environmental quality), road danger reduction, traffic levels and related trends, congestion, emissions, air quality, CO₂ and greening of the vehicle fleet.

- Section 3: A good public transport experience. Whole journey approach (including links between public transport and active modes, and public realm at interchanges and other stations), fares and affordability and quality aspects such as physical accessibility, public transport supply, patronage and operational performance trends across all modes, crowding, measured and perceptual-based quality indicators.

- Section 4: Supporting new homes and jobs. Top-level drivers of demand (population, jobs and related), the changing nature of density and land use mix, connectivity, relationship between transport provision/investment and ‘unlocking’ (land use etc.), focus on central London (capacity/demand), focus on Opportunity Areas (alignment with MTS aims).

- Section 5: How TfL schemes and programmes are supporting MTS objectives. Aim is to explicitly demonstrate how the works that TfL is undertaking, including traffic management, contribute to the delivery of MTS aims, covering 3-4 ‘significant’ schemes or programmes per year and illustrating their contributions.

6. Abbreviations

AEI - Assessment of Economic Impacts CSIA - Community Safety Impact Assessment EqIA - Equalities Impact Assessment GLA - Greater London Authority HRA - Habitats Regulation Assessment IIA - Integrated Impact Assessment LES - London Environment Strategy MTS – Mayor’s Transport Strategy PAS – Post Adoption Statement RTM - Report to the Mayor SEA – Strategic Environmental Assessment SPG - Supplementary Planning Guidance TfL – Transport for London TIL - Travel in London Report